Naqvi urges 'all political parties' to settle issue of more provinces, says current 'system' has collapsed

[M. Sarmad]

What are you blabbering about ? Are you saying that creation of Pakistan was a malicious and undesirable act ...are you akhand Bharat bakht ?

Read the post again and tell me which part you fail to comprehend or consider historically inaccurate...

Pakistan suited both the Muslims of northwestern India and the British... Our interests happened to align at that moment in history, and we were fortunate that they did..

 

[Owaiz]

@mythbuster

von Blumfeld Pai,

You are underestimating the grit of Asim Munir , he is no ab ki mar bhaya Mushy .... Pakistan is on track to become something couple of notches above hard state ...new provinces will be formed along with purge in bureaucracy....

That is what my independent sources (i.e no one from ex-chowk/PDF groups) tell me. That Herr Generalfeldmarschall has made up his minds. The 18th amendment will go and there will be a split of provinces to ensure no provincial warlord will hold up vikas.

The only thing holding back is that the FM sahib doesn't want fauji footprint on the move, but that all of it should appear to be a purely political-administrative move. But a section of the political and bureaucratic network wants the Fauj to take ownership (formally). This is a trick of course- so that if things don't work the entire blame will be placed on the Army/CDS

Regards

Why over-complicate things ? The simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and in this case it is MONEY. The state is no longer able to fund the armed forces' asks given the two external fronts and 2.x internal ones. The armed forces are unwilling to give up their colonial perks and privileges and want the provinces to cough up their share of the money. The PPP which believes, with justification, that it did not benefit as much from election rigging as PMNL, is refusing. Underneath all the posturing, this threat of more provinces is essentially a threat to PPP to sever Karachi's share of the revenue from Sindh to force them to agree to changes to the NFC award. Everything else is just for show.

 

[Distant_Observer]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[peagle]

When precisely did I insinuate that they weren't either. Ofcourse they too were Projects - of different era/decades.

And when they got out of line, they too were shown the door. Infact, if memory serves - Bhutto got the deep end of the stick, before he was hanged. YOUR Leader has had it easy.

Perhaps you didn't dig deep into the 2nd Last Senntence of my post when i spoke about Showbaz Sharif.

And the only reason why Senior Sharif and Benazir were let off easy in their respective times was because they took the deal that were handed out to them and left (only to return back). We can all hate them, but that is what Politicians do. Too bad no one can actually put IK & word 'Politician' in the same sentence without looking like a complete idiot.

IK hasn't taken the deal - assuming that he will be the first one to break the system. We can all label his decision with our own opinions. You may want call it 'Brave'..., I just call plain 'stupidity' - and that is me being kind on account of being on [PDF].

Do Not assume that I am in favour of either PPP or PML-N. But those are actual Political Powers that know how to play the system - case in point: The Present.

If IK knew how to play the System, he'd be the PM of Pakistan & not just another number - 804

I can understand what you're saying, i consider you amongst the better contributors here, but we have become too accustomed to lazy terms which isn't necessarily bad but they are mostly negative in nature, which is bad.

It feels like enough is enough, everything turns into a crying session. every discussion is full of accusations as if such things only happen in Pakistan. Other countries are great. it's rather absurd.

In india, it is documented that one third of their parliamentarians at all levels are full-on Bonafede criminals with murder and rape charges. In fact being a criminal in india is a positive for winning an election. But you never hear them cry about it. It's always considered criticism, and always they point fingers at other countries.
Pakistanis do the opposite.

Issues exist everywhere but only in Pakistan we turn every issue into a bare bone crying session. Labels are thrown, such as "created" or "project" do not help the situation, it creates animosity and then enables continuous instability.

 

[peagle]

Please don't compare Scotland to AJK. The UK allowed them a binding Independence referendum in 2014 and they chose to remain in the UK. If the SNP can ever get a majority of votes, they will likely get another shot at an Independence referendum.

Perhaps you did not read my reply carefully, I wasn't comparing, the person i was replying to was the one comparing.

The UK did not allow a referendum, it was negotiated. Great Britain is a voluntary Union, it's a long history and most of which to be honest i do not remember right now, but the basics are very clear, it was a voluntary Union, which under a democratic setup can be undone.

Your inference being that AJK didn't get a referendum? I'm sorry but that makes no sense.
In fact the people of Gilgit Baltistan are fighting to be legally part of Pakistan, it's a reverse fight.
The people of Azad Kashmir already consider themselves to be Pakistanis, through mind and soul. But they're making a sacrifice for the greater good of the Kashmiri people. I have nothing but uttermost respect for that.

I bet given a choice many areas of Afghanistan would vote to be part of Pakistan.

You do realise every part of Pakistan actually voted to be part of Pakistan. We are the only people in the region that actually decided in favour of Pakistan and the independence of Pakistan. It's a unique position we have not recognised.

Indians did not get a vote to decide if they want to be part of india, they were just thrown together.
The Afghans did not get a vote to decide if they want to be part of Afghanistan, they were just thrown together.
I could also say that for other neighbours in the region.

 

[Owaiz]

The UK did not allow a referendum, it was negotiated. Great Britain is a voluntary Union, it's a long history and most of which to be honest i do not remember right now, but the basics are very clear, it was a voluntary Union, which under a democratic setup can be undone.

The government in London was under no legal obligation to concede the referendum, so, yes, the UK did allow it after a negotiation because there was a plausible case for it and the UK did not wish to keep Scotland against the will of the Scots. The UK may be a de facto voluntary union, but there is nothing de jure that allows Scotland to secede unless the UK Parliament agrees to it.

My point is that in Pakistan, or for that matter in India or most other Asian/African countries, no such referendum would be allowed even if a part of the country were overwhelmingly in favour of it.

So comparing the situation of Scotland or Quebec with any Asian secessionist movement is completely irrelevant.

Of course, in AJK and GB, the situation is somewhat unique since the Constitution of Pakistan itself doesnt recognize them as part of Pakistan and they have no representation in the National Assembly or de jure equality of rights as other provinces. I honestly don't know what the solution to this limbo situation is, but i dont think it is tenable long-term.

 

[M. Sarmad]

i consider you amongst the better contributors here, ....

So the contributors you rate highly are the ones openly calling for thirty 30 years of martial law with the constitution held in abeyance.... That is the precise conduct Article 6 defines as high treason, and the punishment on the statute book is death or life imprisonment....

And the same people want Kashmiris in AJK convicted under 123-A for declining to accede to Pakistan...... A position identical to Pakistan's own stated position at the UN, and written into Article 257 of its own constitution.... Under a section that by its own wording reaches only advocacy against Pakistani sovereignty over territories lying within its borders.... !!

Calling for treason at home, demanding convictions abroad for agreeing with the foreign ministry.... Do not know whether to laugh or cry...

A lot of you have been crawling out of the woodwork lately.

 

[M. Sarmad]

The government in London was under no legal obligation to concede the referendum, so, yes, the UK did allow it after a negotiation because there was a plausible case for it and the UK did not wish to keep Scotland against the will of the Scots. The UK may be a de facto voluntary union, but there is nothing de jure that allows Scotland to secede unless the UK Parliament agrees to it.

My point is that in Pakistan, or for that matter in India or most other Asian/African countries, no such referendum would be allowed even if a part of the country were overwhelmingly in favour of it.

So comparing the situation of Scotland or Quebec with any Asian secessionist movement is completely irrelevant.

Of course, in AJK and GB, the situation is somewhat unique since the Constitution of Pakistan itself doesnt recognize them as part of Pakistan and they have no representation in the National Assembly or de jure equality of rights as other provinces. I honestly don't know what the solution to this limbo situation is, but i dont think it is tenable long-term.

Agreed....

And referendum in AJK is not a favour Pakistan is weighing up whether to bestow on Kashmiris...... It is the condition on which Pakistan holds the territory in the first place....

Under the UN resolutions, Azad Kashmir is neither a sovereign state nor a province of Pakistan...... It is a local authority administering territory assigned to it under the ceasefire agreement, pending a plebiscite.... Pakistan accepted that framework, argues from it at the UN to this day, and wrote the consequence into Article 257 of its own constitution: when the people of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship shall be determined in accordance with their wishes......

Which is why the comparison to Europe and the US is a strawman twice over...

First, peaceful advocacy of separation is not in itself criminal across most of the West to begin with, so the comparison would not help even if it fit...

Second, and more fundamentally, it does not fit....Secession presupposes accession...

You cannot secede from a state you never joined.... AJK has not legally become part of Pakistan, on Pakistan's own account, in its own constitution, in the position its own foreign ministry defends... The entire frame is a category error.

If the objection is that Kashmiris should have no say in the matter, the self-claimed "patriots" gang should take it up with the resolutions Pakistan's own government keeps citing...

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@Owaiz sb

Underneath all the posturing, this threat of more provinces is essentially a threat to PPP to sever Karachi's share of the revenue from Sindh to force them to agree to changes to the NFC award.

That is a fair point. The Bhutto-Zardari clan knows that if Sindh is partitioned and Karachi carved out as a separate province, they will be left with rural Sindh (which is essentially the Pakistani equivalent of the Gandhian Amethi-Rae Bareli)- no way that this can satisfy the thieving clan. They will have to play ball.

In any case, a nation must have enough budget to meet external and internal security needs. The provinces must relent.

Regards

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@M. Sarmad

Sarmad sb,

I hope you don't write in public forums, what you write here?

Regards

 

[El Sidd]

No freedom right.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

So what's the problem here? The interior ministry of the country is stating that the system has collapsed. It essentially means that there's no government in parts of the country.

Government should deliberate putting a state of emergency as insurgents and separatists are governing states within the state. There are a dozen or so separatist movements holding significant pieces of land and resources.

 

[c14-Isotope]

You are underestimating the grit of Asim Munir , he is no ab ki mar bhaya Mushy .... zardari and nawaz tubar have no choice but to toe the line , otherwise , they will be skinned alive...both zardari and nawaz were given an opportunity to atone for their sins and they ain't getting another opportunity.... Pakistan is on track to become something couple of notches above hard state ...new provinces will be formed along with purge in bureaucracy....fear of getting ostracized by the west in case of martial law is gone.

Where was his grit in SIFC?

 

[peagle]

I am going to apologise for replying to your statement in quotations because it's a personal pet peeve of mine, something i hate but you have presented such a wishy washy version of history, which amounts to bare faced lies that we have grown up with all our lives, I have to break it into it's core absurdity.
Some of what you say is true but that's how the best lies work, they mix the truth with half truths mixed with lies, just beautiful.

Just to be clear, I am not accusing you as a person of lying deliberately. It's the understanding of issues which have over time come to be accepted as fact.

There was indeed an asymmetry, but the reason is simple....... India was the successor state being granted independence...... Pakistan was a new state being carved out on the claim that Muslim majority areas wanted separation, so that claim had to be demonstrated through votes or referendums where it was contested......

India was not a successor state. The entire process was about post British withdrawal, and the creation of india and independence of Pakistan was a result of those negotiations.
India was created by the British, it did not exist before the British arrived.

Nothing was decided until it was decided, the decision was after the fact, not before the fact, the fact of British withdrawal came after joint negotiations and unfair powerplay (unfair towards the Muslim League/Pakistan).
The British withdrawal was part of a negotiated process consisting of a troika.
The Hindu dominated Congress party, around 95% Hindu, almost all upper caste Hindus, the Muslim League and the British.

The successor state issue is a legal process, not a historical right. It only exists in a modern nation-state framework.
Furthermore, the successor state claim was contested by the Muslim League/Pakistan, not something given to india automatically as a right, it was a compromise.

The referendums by the people, or in assemblies were also the result of a compromise. It does not matter why they happened, but the fact they did and the people whether in assemblies or by vote, did choose.
It's absurd to ignore the side which had no choice, who did not get to choose their country and throw accusations at the side that did decide democratically and willingly.

I have more to say but to keep it condensed i will keep it at that.

The claim that "no one voted to join India" is also false..... The Punjab and Bengal Legislative Assemblies voted on partition, and those votes determined which parts became India and which became Pakistan....

When i say no-one in India, that is a fact, no one in india choose, they were not given a choice. They were thrown into the new country of india.
Bengal and Punjab voted as part of the negotiated compromise to create difficulties for Muslim League/Pakistan.
Their vote was a default action as a result of the Muslim league accepting that process, not an inherent right given to them, they did not choose india, they, the Hindus and Sikhs rejected Pakistan, there is a difference.

If their position is we can all live together in this new country of India, and my position is i do not trust the future setup and i desire a fair settlement, a fair power sharing formula, it is on you to live up to your words.
Or did they mean that we can live together as long as We are the majority, but we refuse to live together if You are the majority. The burden was on them to live together, which they rejected.

That option given to them was a byproduct of what the Muslim League/Pakistan accepted as a compromise, not a standalone right given to them.
So no part of india got a choice to be part of india, they did not choose, they were thrown into that newly created country of india. That is a fact.

NWFP is particularly revealing..... Instead of letting the Congress led provincial assembly decide, the British held a referendum because the assembly was unlikely to opt for Pakistan..... They changed the procedure when it suited the outcome....

There is nothing interesting about it, unless you wish to create fantasies.
A fair process is an essential part of a fair vote. NWFP was the only part where the people had a different demand from the party in power, it was painfully clear, things do not happen in a vacuum.

The result of the referendum prove that the people had a different desire from the ruling party. Despite a call for a boycott, the people turned up in the same numbers as the previous election, and unanimously voted for the independence of Pakistan. A 99% yes vote, it's an incredible result.
Even if you account for the people who did not vote, count all the registered voters whether they turned up to vote or not, it was still a majority Yes vote. The Yes vote was so strong.

If you want to look for excuses, that's on you, then that's not history, it's fantasies, always looking for excuses rather then facts on hand.

And that points to Britain's strategic objective..... ensuring Pakistan came into existence....Pakistan offered strategic depth, military bases, and a buffer toward Central Asia and the Soviet sphere...... Had Britain simply wanted to quit India, it could have transferred power to a Soviet-leaning united India and left constitutional questions to Indians themselves... It didn't.

I am sorry but i have to say this is nothing but childish fantasies, i have heard this many times, it is so ridiculous i am shocked it keeps getting a mention. In fact I find it insulting because it is intellectually dishonest.

Britain tried their damn best to stop the independence of Pakistan. Mountbatten even presented his wife, how can you be a neutral broker if your wife is having an affair with one of the party involved.

Mountbatten constantly gave secrets to the Congress party, including allowing Nehru to see the new boundaries before the handover and changing the border according to his wishes. The official release was on the 17th August. I am shocked that the likes of you constantly, forget such facts.
Reducing the handover timeframe from over a year to about 10 weeks was clearly designed to ensure Pakistan failed as an independent state.

Britain did not want to quit India, that's painfully obvious. What do you think decades of negotiations and the struggles was for?
It was forced to leave because both the Muslim League and the Congress party wanted their own country.
It was forced to leave because it was a much weakened state after two world wars. It was forced to leave as part of a negotiated settlement.

Strategic depth, buffer, bases these are so ridiculous that i do not even know where to start so i will leave it at that, and delve on such matters if you decide to push it.

You really need to get away from this pedestrian history, it is the main cause of constant instability in this region, because people are constantly being fed ridiculous lies.

 

[peagle]

So the contributors you rate highly are the ones openly calling for thirty 30 years of martial law with the constitution held in abeyance.... That is the precise conduct Article 6 defines as high treason, and the punishment on the statute book is death or life imprisonment....

And the same people want Kashmiris in AJK convicted under 123-A for declining to accede to Pakistan...... A position identical to Pakistan's own stated position at the UN, and written into Article 257 of its own constitution.... Under a section that by its own wording reaches only advocacy against Pakistani sovereignty over territories lying within its borders.... !!

Calling for treason at home, demanding convictions abroad for agreeing with the foreign ministry.... Do not know whether to laugh or cry...

A lot of you have been crawling out of the woodwork lately.

Are you ok or do you need a doctor, i fear you need help.

Read my other reply and stop spreading your childish fantasies. I am here for grown up discussions.

SO according to your logic, if you like someone or agree with someone or find someone intelligent that means you must agree with everything they say.
What are you? A child?

 

[peagle]

The government in London was under no legal obligation to concede the referendum, so, yes, the UK did allow it after a negotiation because there was a plausible case for it and the UK did not wish to keep Scotland against the will of the Scots. The UK may be a de facto voluntary union, but there is nothing de jure that allows Scotland to secede unless the UK Parliament agrees to it.

My point is that in Pakistan, or for that matter in India or most other Asian/African countries, no such referendum would be allowed even if a part of the country were overwhelmingly in favour of it.

So comparing the situation of Scotland or Quebec with any Asian secessionist movement is completely irrelevant.

Of course, in AJK and GB, the situation is somewhat unique since the Constitution of Pakistan itself doesnt recognize them as part of Pakistan and they have no representation in the National Assembly or de jure equality of rights as other provinces. I honestly don't know what the solution to this limbo situation is, but i dont think it is tenable long-term.

When you word it in this manner, you have a valid point. I agree, mostly.